Of course, it also requires they have the capability of building one more New Glenn booster (since the above only applies if the "Grasshoper" really is as similar as possible to the real thing) and seven more BE-4s beyond those they're contractually obligated to provide. Which may be outside their abilities.Also, important observation: if you do the testing right, the BE-4s used on the "Grasshopper" can later be repurposed for a real New Glenn booster, and thus they aren't a wasted cost. Doesn't work if you crash the Grasshopper, but if you were planning on doing similar tests on actual returning New Glenn boosters, you'd have lost the engines then anyway, so it's a wash.
Quote from: trimeta on 03/10/2023 03:52 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2023 03:45 amQuote from: trimeta on 03/10/2023 02:35 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2023 01:32 amWhat does grasshopper type vehicle achieve.? Its expensive waste of resources and time. SpaceX used the F9 for all its reentry testing.It could help them understand how the lessons of New Shepard apply to a vehicle with a very different shape (and therefore aerodynamics), size (and therefore mass), and engines (and therefore throttle range and responsiveness).Of course, it also requires they have the capability of building one more New Glenn booster (since the above only applies if the "Grasshoper" really is as similar as possible to the real thing) and seven more BE-4s beyond those they're contractually obligated to provide. Which may be outside their abilities.Also, important observation: if you do the testing right, the BE-4s used on the "Grasshopper" can later be repurposed for a real New Glenn booster, and thus they aren't a wasted cost. Doesn't work if you crash the Grasshopper, but if you were planning on doing similar tests on actual returning New Glenn boosters, you'd have lost the engines then anyway, so it's a wash.Edit: GWH's comment below reminds me that Blue Origin would only need the wherewithal to build one spare engine (and six mass simulators, maybe) to build a Grasshopper-equivalent. I stand by saying that this may still be beyond them.For any RLV to be profitable the mission price should cover all costs even if booster isn't recovered. Profit is in reuse of booster. This being case it is cheaper and quicker to gain recovery lessons with operational LV. Customers care about flight heritage ( payloads to orbit) of RLV not recovery side. More successful missions to orbit the better regardless of how unsuccessful recoveries are. A grasshopper type test vehicle will not gain Blue flight heritage.The theory here is that attempting reuse on a live booster coming in hot from space is an all-or-nothing test: either it lands under the most extreme conditions, or you lose it. With a Grasshopper-style vehicle you can work your way up to that, letting you learn on easier regimes before you get to "full reentry" velocities. If the learnings from these easier tests lead to even one successful booster recovery which otherwise would have been a failure, it's more than paid for itself (since the Grasshopper-style vehicle is cheaper than a real booster, due to only needing one real engine).Very strange.New Shepard demonstrated successful reuse in 2015. Think Masten was years before that. F9 demonstrated reuse after both of these in late 2015. Grasshopper was just a MacGuffin.Don’t think you’re balancing time to get FAA cert vs costs.New Shepard has had a strong record of FAA approvals.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2023 03:45 amQuote from: trimeta on 03/10/2023 02:35 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2023 01:32 amWhat does grasshopper type vehicle achieve.? Its expensive waste of resources and time. SpaceX used the F9 for all its reentry testing.It could help them understand how the lessons of New Shepard apply to a vehicle with a very different shape (and therefore aerodynamics), size (and therefore mass), and engines (and therefore throttle range and responsiveness).Of course, it also requires they have the capability of building one more New Glenn booster (since the above only applies if the "Grasshoper" really is as similar as possible to the real thing) and seven more BE-4s beyond those they're contractually obligated to provide. Which may be outside their abilities.Also, important observation: if you do the testing right, the BE-4s used on the "Grasshopper" can later be repurposed for a real New Glenn booster, and thus they aren't a wasted cost. Doesn't work if you crash the Grasshopper, but if you were planning on doing similar tests on actual returning New Glenn boosters, you'd have lost the engines then anyway, so it's a wash.Edit: GWH's comment below reminds me that Blue Origin would only need the wherewithal to build one spare engine (and six mass simulators, maybe) to build a Grasshopper-equivalent. I stand by saying that this may still be beyond them.For any RLV to be profitable the mission price should cover all costs even if booster isn't recovered. Profit is in reuse of booster. This being case it is cheaper and quicker to gain recovery lessons with operational LV. Customers care about flight heritage ( payloads to orbit) of RLV not recovery side. More successful missions to orbit the better regardless of how unsuccessful recoveries are. A grasshopper type test vehicle will not gain Blue flight heritage.The theory here is that attempting reuse on a live booster coming in hot from space is an all-or-nothing test: either it lands under the most extreme conditions, or you lose it. With a Grasshopper-style vehicle you can work your way up to that, letting you learn on easier regimes before you get to "full reentry" velocities. If the learnings from these easier tests lead to even one successful booster recovery which otherwise would have been a failure, it's more than paid for itself (since the Grasshopper-style vehicle is cheaper than a real booster, due to only needing one real engine).
Quote from: trimeta on 03/10/2023 02:35 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2023 01:32 amWhat does grasshopper type vehicle achieve.? Its expensive waste of resources and time. SpaceX used the F9 for all its reentry testing.It could help them understand how the lessons of New Shepard apply to a vehicle with a very different shape (and therefore aerodynamics), size (and therefore mass), and engines (and therefore throttle range and responsiveness).Of course, it also requires they have the capability of building one more New Glenn booster (since the above only applies if the "Grasshoper" really is as similar as possible to the real thing) and seven more BE-4s beyond those they're contractually obligated to provide. Which may be outside their abilities.Also, important observation: if you do the testing right, the BE-4s used on the "Grasshopper" can later be repurposed for a real New Glenn booster, and thus they aren't a wasted cost. Doesn't work if you crash the Grasshopper, but if you were planning on doing similar tests on actual returning New Glenn boosters, you'd have lost the engines then anyway, so it's a wash.Edit: GWH's comment below reminds me that Blue Origin would only need the wherewithal to build one spare engine (and six mass simulators, maybe) to build a Grasshopper-equivalent. I stand by saying that this may still be beyond them.For any RLV to be profitable the mission price should cover all costs even if booster isn't recovered. Profit is in reuse of booster. This being case it is cheaper and quicker to gain recovery lessons with operational LV. Customers care about flight heritage ( payloads to orbit) of RLV not recovery side. More successful missions to orbit the better regardless of how unsuccessful recoveries are. A grasshopper type test vehicle will not gain Blue flight heritage.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2023 01:32 amWhat does grasshopper type vehicle achieve.? Its expensive waste of resources and time. SpaceX used the F9 for all its reentry testing.It could help them understand how the lessons of New Shepard apply to a vehicle with a very different shape (and therefore aerodynamics), size (and therefore mass), and engines (and therefore throttle range and responsiveness).Of course, it also requires they have the capability of building one more New Glenn booster (since the above only applies if the "Grasshoper" really is as similar as possible to the real thing) and seven more BE-4s beyond those they're contractually obligated to provide. Which may be outside their abilities.Also, important observation: if you do the testing right, the BE-4s used on the "Grasshopper" can later be repurposed for a real New Glenn booster, and thus they aren't a wasted cost. Doesn't work if you crash the Grasshopper, but if you were planning on doing similar tests on actual returning New Glenn boosters, you'd have lost the engines then anyway, so it's a wash.Edit: GWH's comment below reminds me that Blue Origin would only need the wherewithal to build one spare engine (and six mass simulators, maybe) to build a Grasshopper-equivalent. I stand by saying that this may still be beyond them.
What does grasshopper type vehicle achieve.? Its expensive waste of resources and time. SpaceX used the F9 for all its reentry testing.
Very strange.New Shepard demonstrated successful reuse in 2015. Think Masten was years before that. F9 demonstrated reuse after both of these in late 2015. Grasshopper was just a MacGuffin.Don’t think you’re balancing time to get FAA cert vs costs.New Shepard has had a strong record of FAA approvals.
Quote from: Mr. Scott on 03/10/2023 05:21 amVery strange.New Shepard demonstrated successful reuse in 2015. Think Masten was years before that. F9 demonstrated reuse after both of these in late 2015. Grasshopper was just a MacGuffin.Don’t think you’re balancing time to get FAA cert vs costs.New Shepard has had a strong record of FAA approvals. A MacGuffin you say?And yet SpaceX, despite it’s extensive F9 landing experience, still saw the benefit of using SN5 through 15 in a grasshopper style campaign.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/07/2023 04:38 pmBy 2025 NG will be competing with new medium RLVs like Neutron, Terran R and Beta as one or more of these is likely to be flying. All three of these RLV's companies will have more orbital flight experience than Blue as they have small LVs. Blue still has lead on booster reuse thanks to NS. Being smaller RLVs likely will reach operational flight levels quicker than NG especially given Blue slow go slow history.Don't be surprised if these medium RLVs start stealing NGs constellation business.They will also be competing against Starship, assuming that it and the others you mention stay on their current schedules. SpaceX is explicitly trying to make its production and operations costs low enough to compete against medium-lift RLVs on a per-launch basis.Since the 2025 version of NG is not fully reusable, they must also compete against the partially reusable F9.
By 2025 NG will be competing with new medium RLVs like Neutron, Terran R and Beta as one or more of these is likely to be flying. All three of these RLV's companies will have more orbital flight experience than Blue as they have small LVs. Blue still has lead on booster reuse thanks to NS. Being smaller RLVs likely will reach operational flight levels quicker than NG especially given Blue slow go slow history.Don't be surprised if these medium RLVs start stealing NGs constellation business.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 03/07/2023 04:51 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/07/2023 04:38 pmBy 2025 NG will be competing with new medium RLVs like Neutron, Terran R and Beta as one or more of these is likely to be flying. All three of these RLV's companies will have more orbital flight experience than Blue as they have small LVs. Blue still has lead on booster reuse thanks to NS. Being smaller RLVs likely will reach operational flight levels quicker than NG especially given Blue slow go slow history.Don't be surprised if these medium RLVs start stealing NGs constellation business.They will also be competing against Starship, assuming that it and the others you mention stay on their current schedules. SpaceX is explicitly trying to make its production and operations costs low enough to compete against medium-lift RLVs on a per-launch basis.Since the 2025 version of NG is not fully reusable, they must also compete against the partially reusable F9.If New Glenn first flies in 2025, don’t expect first booster reuse until like 2028.(This is the primary reason why I think Blue should by ULA: a green launch ops team will slow down NG’s operational ramp.)
Quote from: Comga on 03/10/2023 12:42 am*snip*They still plan to skip over the “Grasshopper and grid fin addition” stage *snip*New Glenn's design already has fins, they don't need to add grid fins.
*snip*They still plan to skip over the “Grasshopper and grid fin addition” stage *snip*
Quote from: ZachF on 03/10/2023 06:30 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 03/07/2023 04:51 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 03/07/2023 04:38 pmBy 2025 NG will be competing with new medium RLVs like Neutron, Terran R and Beta as one or more of these is likely to be flying. All three of these RLV's companies will have more orbital flight experience than Blue as they have small LVs. Blue still has lead on booster reuse thanks to NS. Being smaller RLVs likely will reach operational flight levels quicker than NG especially given Blue slow go slow history.Don't be surprised if these medium RLVs start stealing NGs constellation business.They will also be competing against Starship, assuming that it and the others you mention stay on their current schedules. SpaceX is explicitly trying to make its production and operations costs low enough to compete against medium-lift RLVs on a per-launch basis.Since the 2025 version of NG is not fully reusable, they must also compete against the partially reusable F9.If New Glenn first flies in 2025, don’t expect first booster reuse until like 2028.(This is the primary reason why I think Blue should by ULA: a green launch ops team will slow down NG’s operational ramp.)If NG first flies in 2025, don't expect the tenth flight before 2029. That would be faster than any new orbital LV in the last 40 years including F9 and Atlas V. Maybe Vulcan, Starship or NG will beat this. We'll see.
Cornell: Blue Origin completed a hardware-in-the-loop test of New Glenn software (full avionics etc.), and flew a couple of simulated nominal launches. "We're making fantastic progress and we're going to fly when we're ready."
Cornell: "We do have some very important customers ... and we've been communicating with them in vast detail. And I know we don't necessarily give the public as much detail, but with our customers we are very open."
I'm hearing that Blue Origin is working to take over SLC-6 at Vandenberg Space Force Base. Won't happen until after the Delta IV Heavy is officially retired. Would give New Glenn a West coast launch pad.
No D4H launches scheduled for VSFB though.
No, but my understanding is that NRO will hold the pad for Delta until the final rocket flies.
Could Blue be developing several New Glenns at the same time to start with a relatively high cadence of launches from the beginning?
Quote from: Tywin on 04/14/2023 02:40 pmCould Blue be developing several New Glenns at the same time to start with a relatively high cadence of launches from the beginning?They may choose to build several in parallel. The risk is that lessons learned from the first launches may expose the need for design changes that may require major rework or scrapping of some of them. This is the SpaceX approach. Historically with other LVs, the time from the first test launch to the first operational launch is driven by test evaluation and design changes, not by vehicle availability. Look at Falcon 9 and Atlas V as examples. No LV in the last 50 years has launched more than ten times in its first four years. Why would Starship, Vulcan Centaur, or New Glenn break this sequence?Also remember that this will be BO's first orbital LV. They may have some lessons to learn in that regard also.
